logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.22 2015가단36768
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 58,251,394, respectively, and 5% per annum from October 6, 2015 to December 22, 2016, respectively, to the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition D, married with E on March 30, 1962, had the Plaintiff A as his child. On August 3, 1966, the agreement with E was married with E on August 3, 1966, and returned to F on April 15, 1967, and had the Defendant, G (Death on July 18, 197), and Plaintiff B as his child.

F The F died on March 22, 2007, and D died on February 19, 2013.

Each real estate of this case was owned D, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 19, 2013 in the name of the defendant on June 24, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 to 3, and 6

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion D shows a psychological anxiety due to the death of F. The period from August 1, 2012 to the date of death was admitted to the period of medical care, and the life was terminated, and it was impossible to communicate with F. The state of consciousness and consciousness was mixed for several years since the death of F.

Nevertheless, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estates on the ground of testamentary gift on the ground that D is in a state of defectiveness, which is null and void as it was made without D’s will of testamentary gift.

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that D, May 6, 2005, a notary public prepared a notarial deed that bequeathed each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff under the No. 11117 of the certificate of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law office of the law

The plaintiffs asserted that D had failed to keep the mind even before the preparation of the notarial deed, and submitted Gap evidence No. 8. However, even if following the statement, the date of occurrence is around 2006 after the preparation of the notarial deed. However, although D was not in a state of mental or physical disability or mental capacity, the notarial deed is not prepared as a witness at the time of preparation of the notarial deed.

arrow